Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Municipal Board vs Gopalram on 11 March, 2022
Bench: Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 262/2019
Municipal Board, Rawatsar through its Executive Officer,
Municipal Board, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Gopalram S/o Shri Hukmaram, B/c Kumhar, R/o Rawatsar
(Died) through its Lrs
2. Gangadevi W/o Gopalram, B/c Kumhar, R/o Rawatsar
(Died) through its Lrs
2/1 Omprakash S/o Late Shri Gopalram, B/c Kumhar,
R/o Rawatsar.
2/2 Shyam Sunder S/o Late Shri Gopalram, B/c
Kumhar, R/o Rawatsar.
2/3 Dharma Devi D/o Late Shri Gopalram, B/c
Kumhar, R/o Rawatsar.
2/4 Rajendra Prasad S/o Late Shri Gopalram, B/c
Kumhar, R/o Rawatsar.
2/5 Pushpa D/o Late Shri Gopalram, B/c Kumhar, R/o
Rawatsar.
2/6 Champalal S/o Late Shri Gopalram, B/c Kumhar,
R/o Rawatsar.
3 The State of Rajasthan through the District Collector,
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.S. Sidhu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishan Lal Bansal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
Judgment
March 11, 2022
The present civil second appeal has been preferred under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the appellant
- Municipal Board against impugned Judgment and Decree dated
03.09.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Nohar,
(2 of 4) [CSA-262/2019]
District Hanumangarh in Civil Regular Appeal No. 05/1999 titled as
"Municipal Board, Rawatsar Vs. Gopalram (since died) & anr." vide
which the first appeal preferred by the appellant against the
Judgment and Order dated 18.05.1998 passed by the Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh in Civil Regular
Suit No. 12/1993 (Old) (New 191/1996) titled as "Gopalaram Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors." decreeing the suit for declaration and
injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff, was dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the admission and
perused the record of the courts below.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to issue patta dated
16.04.1960 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff because after
publication of the Notification dated 05.05.1959, the rights over
land did not remain with the Gram Panchayat. He has further
submitted that there was no pleading regarding acquiring title
over the land by adverse possession. Both the courts below erred
in allowing the patta in evidence. The patta was ab initio void and
there was no need to file suit for cancellation of patta.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem
Singh and Others Vs. Birbal and Others reported in (2006) 5
Supreme Court Cases 353.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-
plaintiff has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was based
on acquiring the title by adverse possession. The plaintiff
remained in possession of the suit property for over 30 years in
pursuance of the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of
the plaintiff - Gopalram. There was concurrent findings recorded
(3 of 4) [CSA-262/2019]
by both the courts below regarding uninterrupted possession of
the plaintiff for more than 30 years. He has further submitted
that no substantial question of law arises in the present second
appeal, hence, same may be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiff has relied upon
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Bondar Singh and Others Vs. Nihal Singh and Others
reported in (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 161; Kalika
Prasad and another Vs. Chhatrapal Singh (dead) by LR's
reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1699; State of
Maharashtra Vs. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar (Dead) by LRs
reported in (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 460 and Gurdev
Kaur and Others Vs. Kaki and Others reported in (2007) 1
Supreme Court Cases 546.
After perusal of the record, it reveals that the suit was filed
by the respondents-plaintiff seeking declaration and injunction on
the ground of uninterrupted possession over the suit property for
more than 30 years, therefore, the plaintiff perfected his title over
the plot, for which patta was issued by the erstwhile Gram
Panchayat on 16.04.1960 in his favour. It is true that from the
findings of the courts below, it emerges that the Gram Panchayat
was not authorized to issue this patta after publication of the
notification in favour of the Colonization Department, however, the
fact remains that the suit was based on the ground that the
plaintiff acquired the title of the suit property by adverse
possession and both the courts below have recorded concurrent
findings regarding peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the
disputed land for more than 30 years. The defendant also failed
to adduce any evidence to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff.
(4 of 4) [CSA-262/2019]
In view of the above position, this Court is satisfied that no
substantial question of law is involved in the present second
appeal to be decided by this Court.
Accordingly, the present second appeal is dismissed at
admission stage.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J
Inder/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
